Employee Benefits: A Balancing Act for Closely Held Businesses

Quinn, Jacqueline M.
February 2000
Journal of Financial Planning;Feb2000, Vol. 13 Issue 2, p50
Academic Journal
This article examines the position of closely held business owners in the U.S. when it comes to the issue of employee benefits. According to author Bruce J. Temkin, dramatic legislation changes over the last few years have given the owners of closely held businesses planning opportunities that never would have been thought possible. For example, effective January 1, 2000, as a result of the elimination of Section 415(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, there are no longer any limits on the amount an employee who participates in both of the employer's defined benefit and defined contribution plans. This will give many closely held business owners the opportunity to substantially increase contributions in qualified plans.


Related Articles

  • Forget 409A--The Magic Is In ERISA. Gephart, John // National Underwriter / Life & Health Financial Services;1/14/2008, Vol. 112 Issue 2, p10 

    The article reports on the advantage of the Employee Retirement Income Savings of 1974 (ERISA) over the Internal Revenue Code Section 409A in the U.S. Section 409A was designed to curtail abusive nonqualified deferred compensation (NQDC) design techniques. However, 409A has essentially left...

  • Decoding the New DNA of Non-Qualified, Deferred-Compensation Plans. Parrs, Eugene // Business Journal (Central New York);2/24/2006, Vol. 20 Issue 8, p11 

    The article presents the author's opinions regarding non-qualified, deferred-compensation plans in the U.S. In 2004, the addition of Section 409A to the Internal Revenue Code revised all the rules for non-qualified, deferred-compensation plans. The revised rules became effective on January 1,...

  • FROM THE EDITOR. VanDerhei, Jack L. // Benefits Quarterly;1991 Third Quarter, Vol. 7 Issue 3, p3 

    This article focuses on the contents of the 1991, third quarter edition of the periodical �Benefits Quarterly�. The use of separate lines of business in retirement plan qualification is the focus of the two lead articles in this issue. The U.S. Internal Revenue Service published a...

  • Washington Wire. Bell, Lawrence L. // Journal of Retirement Planning;Jan/Feb2008, Vol. 11 Issue 1, p9 

    The article discusses the history and bulletproofing of Funded Welfare Benefit Plans in the U.S. The Employee Welfare Benefit Plans under Code Secs. 419 and 419A has limitations applied not only to nonprofit tax-exempt entities but also recognized the existence of nontax-exempt trusts providing...

  • YOU CAN STILL RETIRE RICH, REALLY. Birger, Jon; Caplin, Joan; Kowitt, Beth // Fortune International (Asia);6/22/2009, Vol. 159 Issue 12, p24 

    The article looks at ways to improve retirement plans. It describes the behavior of employees on retirement issues during recession, citing those who are putting their plans on hold while younger investors are experiencing little opportunity for early retirement. It cites several options for...

  • BENEFITS NEWS. Johnson, Tom // Risk Management (00355593);Sep90, Vol. 37 Issue 9, p16 

    This section presents news briefs on employment benefits in the U.S. as of September 1, 1990. Nearly one-third of survey respondents believed that organizations will terminate health flexible spending accounts as a result of proposed Internal Revenue Service regulations, according to the...

  • Wrong Pension Feature Codes on 401(k) Plans.  // Employee Plans News;3/4/2014, Issue 3, p1 

    The article focuses on the 401(k) Nonqualified Plans Project of the Employee Plans Compliance Unit (EPCU). The Project seeks to determine if plan sponsors incorrectly select pension feature codes on their Form 5500-series return. It has been found that plan sponsors selecting pension feature...

  • REASSESSING SEC. 457(f) ARRANGEMENTS. Landsberg, Richard D. // Journal of Financial Service Professionals;Mar2006, Vol. 60 Issue 2, p20 

    The article focuses on nonqualified deferred compensation, which in general are not subject to contribution limits in non profit organizations. A distinction is made between 547 (f) plans that are elective and nonelective. Elective plans are contributed to by the employee, whereas nonelective...

  • Section 401(a)(26) Minimum Participation Regulations. Piotrowicz, Michael S.; Reyes, Susan Morand // Benefits Quarterly;1990 First Quarter, Vol. 6 Issue 1, p19 

    The Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA '86) added Section 401(a)(26) to the Internal Revenue Code, providing new minimum participation rules for plan years beginning in 1989. This Code section requires that all qualified plans benefit a minimum of 50 employees or 40% of all employees (whichever is...


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics